| Author | Message | ||
     Joesbuell |
Buell needs to address this problem! | ||
| Buellisticx1 |
Hi fellow Buellers. Just installed the ISO 79-D today. I started up the bike and at idle cold, It not vibrated so much as the previous ISO L0501.2, a little movement only, it seems much more solid and resistant. After it is warmed up fully there isn't any vibration at idling nor to rev up The only problem I've seen the 79-D is larger isolator mount and the top nut does not fully threaded in the center bolt as the ISO L0501.2. I tightened to especs and applied Loctite blue to the nut threads. Mileage will tell. | ||
| Sloppy |
If you're having frequent failures make sure you have have your shock suspension set correctly. The rear suspension is trying to use the engine as a fixed mass - but it's hung off the frame by the isolators. So forces from the rear suspension also go through the isolators. My last isolator went out at 20,000 miles and after 15,000 more miles it still looks okay. Not bad mileage and they are extremely easy to swap out. No complaints from me. If you like to play racer boy and punk in the parking lot then I'm not surprised that isolator life is shorter. But you'll get no sympathy from me. Play like a racer, then pay like a racer.  | ||
| Buellisticx1 |
I'm not a race boy as you say, I do love my bike,. It seems that you're the only one of those who participated in this thread that has not had problems with the front ISO and that's okay. Correct me if i’m wrong. Regards. | ||
| Oldog |
Loren the failure I am seeing is different the elastomer is ripping out of the steel mounting shoe, and stretching (like a gross over load) the mount on my bike as of saturday PM is starting to rip at the back. The insert bond does not appear to be failing. | ||
| Oldog |
Drag Specialties mount LORD J 21920 made by LORD corp based right here in NC the J21920 is not listed I have an enquirey at LORD for the specifics http://www.lord.com/Home/ProductsServices/Vibratio nShockMotionControlProducts/CenterBondedMounts/tab id/3292/Default.aspx the catalog / engineering infohttp://www.lordfulfillment.com/upload/PC7000.pdf (Message edited by oldog on March 09, 2009) | ||
| Gowindward |
Jim, I'm thinking that overloading is really the cause of the failures and not really fatigue, especially on low mileage failures. Question is how to prevent overloading??? I think an alternate load path if an overload condition occurs need to be installed. | ||
| Oldog |
Loren, I have been flipping through the LORD rubber mount catalog trying to get a handle on what the load parameters are and how close to recomended limits the mount is. There has to be some thing that has changed, the original mount lasted 4 years ABAICR. this one is toast at 6 mos and the bike was parked for the last 6 weeks! rear isos? tie bars? or just crap parts? | ||
| Oldog |
BuellisticX1 some thing is wrong if the bolt is short! | ||
| Jramsey |
"........how to prevent overloading?" LOSE WEIGHT OR DON"T RIDE IT!! Just kidding. But IMO iso's are a piss poor engine mount for a motorcycle that uses the motor as a stressed frame and suspension member. Yesterday I went out on the S3 for a short ride and after about 20 miles I started feeling a new vibration along with a metallic clunk going over larger bumps. Got home and noticed the rear head pipe had been making contact with the the frame. By rocking the bike on the side stand I can see the rear ISO flexing a good 1/4" and using a 2' pry bar between the battery box mount and the swingarm block I can force it to move even more. Any way I've got 2 rear iso kits on the way from Al and am going to do the X1 while I'm at it. | ||
| Gowindward |
Jim, did you find the Lord info on the part or in the Drag Specialties catalog. I have two of the Drag Specialties mounts on order and didn't see anything about Lord on that page. | ||
| Gowindward |
"LOSE WEIGHT OR DON"T RIDE IT!!" DOH!!!! Well riding it is kind of out of the question...it's just to much fun. Lose weight??? Well...Just not much there to lose. Maybe ride naked because that Stich has to weigh 20 lbs. LOL | ||
| Oldog |
Maybe ride naked  I'aint touchin that! I could stand to loose some weight ( 250# ) The DS# and the data on the part were posted by Creature X1 BTW Thanks C-X1 I just ordered front from Drag spec and new rear isos, from AL, this leaves the tie bars, WHICH I WILL CHECK, IF I get past the 6 month mark with no failure and then the year mark I will forward the data to AL I wonder as the last one was sooo soft if it was too weak or ...... I am guessing I will replace the mount next weekend and report back Dear Erik; Please don't abandon the tubers..... | ||
| Buellistic |
For every 12 pounds you can lighten your bike or you FAT arse you get one "FREE" rolling Horse Power that does not show up on a DYNO, but only in the real world riding down the highway or on the race track ... | ||
| Jramsey |
If I could get down to my "old" weight of 153 from my current 177  I think my BUTT DYNO would show it. | ||
| Buellistic |
Isolators: Up until 1998 the rear isolators were retro fits from the Soft tail big twin which were PN 47564-86B, "SO" if you never pack double and weight 165 pounds these will work just fine ... Either or some time after 1998 the isolators went to PN L0505.9R(right side) and PN L0504.9L(left side)... My wife and "i" are a total weight is 500 pounds and the L050 isolators can take the weight ... Also had to get a rear shock spring rated at 500 pounds ... | ||
| Buellistic |
Front Isolator: Have the PN 16207-79C and it has not failed yet ... When it does, it gets the PN 16207-79D because it is the latest up-date on this part ... You'll notice that "i" use HARLEY-DAVIDSON Part Numbers and not the "BUELLschitte" Part Numbers because if you say BUELL to a HARLEY-DAVIDSON parts person they tend to go brain dead ... | ||
| Buellisticx1 |
Oldog said: BuellisticX1 some thing is wrong if the bolt is short I don't think some thing is wrong, because the 16207-79D is a little bit longer than L0501.2, then the nut does not screw completely on the bolt, but only is a little bit to screw it and don't think that's really a problem. | ||
| Buellistic |
This is called improvising, you get a longer bolt ... | ||
| Jramsey |
If you install it with the spool/hourglass side down less the thrust washer you can use the D washer and have 1/8 " of thread to spare. The -79D was designed for the rubber mounted Dyna/Big Twin's which the motor( fully frame cradled) sets on top of the spool side/washer. With the front of the Buell motor literally hanging ( along with the the rear suspension compression forces) from it I myself would rather have the larger rubber doughnut side on top verses the the tapered rubber cone. Just my .02 | ||
| Joesbuell |
I was wondering if how the new style rear isolators off centre hole causes undue stress on the front isolator(is this why they all crack on one side?). Cause I believe the original style mounts had the hole in the centre. Just a thought... | ||
| Jramsey |
The originals are offset as are the H-D's.( at least the older Electra Glides were). If the hole were raised to the center on the Buells the frame would interfere with the rear head pipe and the primary cover. | ||
| Oldog |
Interesting Idea Jody, I am trying to figure how the suspension forces act on the front iso. I guess that they pull down, the data that I have dug up indicates that Isolators have a design load direction as well as limits, specific frequency attenuation characteristics, and radial load limits for the sake of discussion, and you degreed engineers jump in and correct me at any time, the total static load on the front isolator IMO should be the 1/2 of the total weight of the machine, plus any loads imposed by the suspension system. My bike X1 weight estmated at 480# ready to ride my weight 270# ready to ride total weight = 750# static load on the isolator = 1/2 total load or 750 / 2 = 375# as the suspension compresses, the engine and swingarm assebley with the shock try to rotate around the rear isolators, BUT the forward frame trys to shear straight down so only part of the load is transfered Against that the driving forces generated by the engine and transfered to the rear wheel try to lift the front of the engine. so trying to determine the dynamic loads for even smooth road conditions is beyond my ability to determine. | ||
| Oldog |
from the Barry Web site Dimensions and Performance Characteristics 508 MOUNT SERIES (.81 lbs) DIMENSIONAL DRAWING  508 Series Load Range (lbs.) Code|Axial Static Load Range | Radial Static Load Range. Code | Nominal | Max.| Nominal. | Max // Color Code -1 / 180 / 270 / 90 / 180 Red -2 / 220 / 330 / 110 / 220 Orange -3 / 260 / 390 / 130 / 260 Yellow <----- The parts that Going Windward had were marked with a yellow dot, -4 / 320 / 480 / 160 / 320 Green -5 / 380 / 570 / 190 / 380 Blue <-- this makes more sense to me if the size of the part matches the drawing [ and it fits ] the Axial load is the down ward pull exerted by weight and the suspension the radial load is a side load ( motor trying to move forward or back ward.) the increased load bearing capabillities may come at the cost of reduced vibration snubbing. increased vibes may cause more fractures of the head and mount engineering work on any system is a series of compromises. | ||
| Jramsey |
"increased vibes may cause more fractures of the head and mount" I totally agree on that, to bad there isn't 2 more mounting holes in the head and/or a bolt in front down tube to catch the cases down at the rear shock mount, then the isos could be a eliminated. | ||
| Joesbuell |
ok forget what i said | ||
| Oldog |
or a bolt in front down tube to catch the cases down at the rear shock mount, then the isos could be a eliminated. They did some thing like that its called the sportster { JK! } If you eliminate the isos, the chassis and other parts must be strengthened to resist the vibration and fatuge I am going to look into the barry mount 508-5 and see if that makes sense. ( assuming that it fits )} | ||
| Sportyeric |
Is this a good place to ask if the new rear isolators can be used on an S2? I seem to remember that the layout of the side plates doesn't have room for a flange on the new ones. Is that correct? | ||
| Gowindward |
Jim, from measuring the stock part and comparing to the above Barry sketch the 508 series is about a 1/4" to big in mounting hole pattern and a couple of other dimensions are off too. The 507 series is a fit dimensionally, although the load capability is much lower and the thru hole is to small. 507 SERIES LOAD RANGE (lbs.) COLOR Axial Static Load Range Radial Static Load Range CODE Code* Nominal Max. Nominal Max. -1 100 150 50 100 Red & White -2 120 180 60 120 Orange -3 150 225 75 150 Yellow -4 180 270 90 180 Green -5 220 330 110 220 Blue (Message edited by gowindward on March 10, 2009) (Message edited by gowindward on March 10, 2009) | ||
| Oldog |
I dont think that the part is a standard item I think its a one off, made by barry Loren the best case loading is IMO way too light I never heard back from LORD on the iso after getting the drawings for dimmentions ( i could not read them ) I wanted the loading data ! sheesh! |
